Giorgio​ ​1

Anthony​ ​Giorgio

Writing​ ​1010-203

Erin​ ​Rogers

29​ ​October​ ​2017

Erica

Primarily,​ ​I​ ​am​ ​a​ ​writer.​ ​In​ ​a​ ​larger​ ​sense,​ ​I​ ​consider​ ​myself​ ​an​ ​artist.​ ​Art​ ​has​ ​always​ ​been

a​ ​reflection​ ​of​ ​the​ ​human​ ​condition​ ​and​ ​my​ ​unending​ ​fascination​ ​with​ ​humanity​ ​bleeds​ ​into

everything​ ​I​ ​create.​​ ​My​ ​stories​ ​tend​ ​to​ ​focus​ ​on​ ​the​ ​dualities​ ​of​ ​personhood––the​ ​contradictions

we​ ​find​ ​within​ ​ourselves––and​ ​most​ ​of​ ​my​ ​visual​ ​portfolio​ ​consists​ ​of​ ​portraiture,​ ​trying​ ​to

capture​ ​the​ ​essence​ ​of​ ​a​ ​person​ ​in​ ​a​ ​recreation​ ​of​ ​their​ ​image.​ ​Having​ ​this​ ​love​ ​of​ ​humankind,​ ​on

the​ ​largest​ ​scale​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​individual,​ ​has​ ​turned​ ​me​ ​into​ ​a​ ​deeply​ ​social​ ​and​ ​romantic

creature.​ ​Scrolling​ ​through​ ​Twitter​ ​one​ ​day,​ ​I​ ​noticed​ ​a​ ​photo​ ​portrait​ ​of​ ​a​ ​lovely​ ​young​ ​woman:

the​ ​type​ ​I​ ​might​ ​consider​ ​drawing​ ​or​ ​painting,​ ​and​ ​exactly​ ​the​ ​subject​ ​that​ ​would​ ​catch​ ​my

attention.​ ​She​ ​was​ ​incredibly​ ​symmetrical,​ ​with​ ​soft,​ ​youthful​ ​skin.​ ​Her​ ​hair​ ​gently​ ​tousled​ ​in​ ​the

back,​ ​and​ ​she​ ​gazed​ ​past​ ​the​ ​left​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​frame.​ ​I​ ​inspected​ ​the​ ​post,​ ​and​ ​was​ ​surprised​ ​to

discover​ ​a​ ​headline​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​it,​ ​as​ ​it​ ​was​ ​actually​ ​an​ ​article​ ​from​ ​the​ ​New​ ​York​ ​Times​.​ ​I​ ​learned

that​ ​the​ ​young​ ​lady’s​ ​name​ ​is​ ​Erica,​ ​and​ ​she​ ​was​ ​born​ ​in​ ​Japan​ ​to​ ​a​ ​man​ ​named​ ​Hiroshi​ ​Ishiguro

and​ ​his​ ​team​ ​of​ ​researchers.​ ​The​ ​name​ ​of​ ​the​ ​article​ ​is​ ​“Do​ ​Androids​ ​Dream​ ​of​ ​Being​ ​Featured​ ​in

Portrait​ ​Competitions?”,​ ​by​ ​Des​ ​Shoe.​ ​Erica​ ​is​ ​the​ ​android,​ ​and​ ​this​ ​was​ ​her​ ​portrait.

The​ ​first​ ​question​ ​I​ ​had​ ​was​ ​“could​ ​Erica​ ​be​ ​a​ ​person?,”​ ​so​ ​I​ ​got​ ​to​ ​know​ ​Erica​ ​a​ ​little

better.​ ​The​ ​Guardian​ ​did​ ​an​ ​extensive​ ​video​ ​exposé​ ​on​ ​Erica​ ​and​ ​her​ ​team,​ ​mainly​ ​focusing​ ​on

Dr.​ ​Ishiguro​ ​and​ ​her​ ​“architect”,​ ​Dr.​ ​Glas,​ ​in​ ​which​ ​they​ ​discuss​ ​their​ ​interdisciplinary​ ​approach
 Giorgio​ ​2

to​ ​creating​ ​humanoid​ ​androids.​ ​In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​create​ ​something​ ​that​ ​approximates​ ​human,​ ​they​ ​must

have​ ​a​ ​team​ ​of​ ​computer​ ​scientists​ ​and​ ​programmers,​ ​a​ ​team​ ​of​ ​linguists​ ​to​ ​develop​ ​her​ ​speech

and​ ​conversation​ ​software,​ ​the​ ​engineers​ ​to​ ​build​ ​her​ ​frame,​ ​and​ ​designers​ ​to​ ​make​ ​the​ ​silicone

molds​ ​for​ ​her​ ​face(Calugareanu).​ ​This​ ​video​ ​spoke​ ​to​ ​exactly​ ​what​ ​drew​ ​me​ ​to​ ​Erica​ ​and​ ​her

researchers​ ​in​ ​the​ ​first​ ​place.​ ​Growing​ ​up,​ ​Dr.​ ​Ishiguro​ ​wanted​ ​to​ ​be​ ​an​ ​oil​ ​painter​ ​because​ ​he,

like​ ​me,​ ​was​ ​captivated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​human​ ​form,​ ​and​ ​with​ ​trying​ ​to​ ​portray​ ​humanity.​ ​I​ ​was

fascinated​ ​by​ ​Dr.​ ​Glas’s​ ​description​ ​of​ ​his​ ​job,​ ​as​ ​he​ ​is​ ​essentially​ ​Erica’s​ ​counselor​ ​and​ ​coach.

To​ ​my​ ​understanding,​ ​he​ ​spends​ ​some​ ​time​ ​each​ ​day​ ​talking​ ​with​ ​her,​ ​exercising​ ​her

conversational​ ​programming,​ ​and​ ​taking​ ​notes​ ​on​ ​where​ ​she​ ​is​ ​weak,​ ​to​ ​pass​ ​on​ ​to​ ​her

programmers.​ ​They​ ​are​ ​working​ ​diligently​ ​to​ ​approximate​ ​a​ ​person​ ​as​ ​closely​ ​as​ ​possible.

Upon​ ​further​ ​research,​ ​I​ ​found​ ​that​ ​is​ ​precisely​ ​the​ ​reason​ ​she​ ​could​ ​never​ ​be​ ​a​ ​person.​ ​It

is​ ​because​ ​they​ ​are​ ​trying​ ​to​ ​approximate​ ​humanity,​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​create​ ​something​ ​that​ ​is​ ​human​ ​in

its​ ​own​ ​right.​ ​Nonetheless,​ ​Erica​ ​and​ ​her​ ​team​ ​made​ ​me​ ​more​ ​curious​ ​as​ ​to​ ​how​ ​engineers,

computer​ ​scientists,​ ​philosophers​ ​and​ ​futurists​ ​were​ ​actually​ ​addressing​ ​that​ ​problem​ ​at​ ​its​ ​root,

which​ ​is​ ​determining​ ​what​ ​qualifies​ ​as​ ​human.​ ​Concerns​ ​around​ ​Artificial​ ​Intelligence​ ​all​ ​point

to​ ​a​ ​reckoning​ ​with​ ​humanity,​ ​or​ ​at​ ​least​ ​with​ ​humans,​ ​and​ ​this​ ​is​ ​what​ ​I​ ​find​ ​so​ ​interesting.​ ​I

want​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​AI​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​explore​ ​how​ ​we​ ​incorporate​ ​something​ ​both​ ​familiar​ ​and

entirely​ ​unprecedented​ ​into​ ​our​ ​understanding​ ​of​ ​the​ ​world.​ ​If​ ​we​ ​are​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​AI,​ ​and​ ​find

a​ ​place​ ​for​ ​it​ ​in​ ​our​ ​world,​ ​we​ ​must​ ​better​ ​understand​ ​our​ ​own​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​humanity.

We​ ​feel​ ​that​ ​we​ ​are​ ​experts​ ​in​ ​what​ ​in​ ​means​ ​to​ ​be​ ​human––arguably,​ ​we​ ​as​ ​humans​ ​are

uniquely​ ​positioned​ ​to​ ​answer​ ​this​ ​question––but​ ​the​ ​mere​ ​state​ ​of​ ​being​ ​human​ ​does​ ​not​ ​qualify

us​ ​outright​ ​to​ ​define​ ​and​ ​defend​ ​humanity,​ ​for​ ​we​ ​can​ ​only​ ​experience​ ​humanity​ ​from​ ​a
 Giorgio​ ​3

subjective​ ​view,​ ​from​ ​within​ ​the​ ​phenomenon​ ​itself.​ ​Many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​things​ ​we​ ​pride​ ​ourselves​ ​on,

and​ ​think​ ​of​ ​as​ ​being​ ​distinctly​ ​human,​ ​are​ ​things​ ​that​ ​AI​ ​could​ ​potentially​ ​do​ ​much​ ​better:

reason​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​intuit,​ ​research​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​create,​ ​know​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​feel.​ ​Researchers​ ​feel​ ​that​ ​all

of​ ​those​ ​activities​ ​lead​ ​to​ ​one​ ​larger​ ​qualification:​ ​that​ ​of​ ​consciousness.​ ​The​ ​most​ ​controversial

dilemma​ ​in​ ​the​ ​field​ ​of​ ​AI,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​closest​ ​that​ ​scientists​ ​and​ ​commentators​ ​will​ ​steer​ ​to​ ​equating

Artificial​ ​Intelligence​ ​with​ ​humanity,​ ​is​ ​whether​ ​or​ ​not​ ​to​ ​create​ ​self-aware,​ ​conscious​ ​AI.

Erica,​ ​for​ ​one,​ ​is​ ​not​ ​self-aware,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​one​ ​reason​ ​I​ ​cannot​ ​accept​ ​her​ ​personhood,

despite​ ​her​ ​appearance.​ ​There​ ​are​ ​plenty​ ​of​ ​AI​ ​that​ ​we​ ​are​ ​more​ ​familiar​ ​with,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​Siri​ ​and

Alexa,​ ​that​ ​are​ ​AI​ ​systems​ ​without​ ​humanoid​ ​frames,​ ​and​ ​we​ ​certainly​ ​don’t​ ​think​ ​of​ ​them​ ​as

people––at​ ​least,​ ​most​ ​of​ ​us​ ​don’t.​ ​Google​ ​Deepmind​ ​is​ ​yet​ ​another​ ​purely​ ​virtual​ ​General​ ​AI,

and​ ​exists​ ​in​ ​a​ ​simulated​ ​environment.​ ​To​ ​understand​ ​whether​ ​these​ ​AI​ ​are​ ​“human”,​ ​we​ ​must

first​ ​understand​ ​if​ ​they​ ​are​ ​conscious,​ ​and​ ​to​ ​do​ ​that,​ ​we​ ​must​ ​try​ ​to​ ​understand​ ​what

consciousness​ ​is.

Sadly,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​still​ ​uncertain​ ​as​ ​to​ ​what​ ​exactly​ ​we​ ​mean​ ​when​ ​we​ ​talk​ ​about

consciousness,​ ​but​ ​researchers​ ​are​ ​beginning​ ​to​ ​think​ ​it​ ​has​ ​as​ ​much​ ​to​ ​do​ ​with​ ​structure​ ​as

function.​ ​As​ ​of​ ​2013,​ ​IBM​ ​and​ ​HRL​ ​Laboratories​ ​had​ ​begun​ ​work​ ​on​ ​a​ ​neuron-inspired

computer​ ​chip.​ ​To​ ​the​ ​point​ ​of​ ​the​ ​researchers,​ ​“​Computers​ ​are​ ​incredibly​ ​inefficient​ ​at​ ​lots​ ​of

tasks​ ​that​ ​are​ ​easy​ ​for​ ​even​ ​the​ ​simplest​ ​brains,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​recognizing​ ​images​ ​and​ ​navigating​ ​in

unfamiliar​ ​spaces”,​ ​and​ ​rather​ ​than​ ​making​ ​computer​ ​chips​ ​based​ ​on​ ​calculator​ ​programming,

they’ve​ ​begun​ ​making​ ​computer​ ​chips​ ​that​ ​work​ ​through​ ​similar​ ​principles​ ​as​ ​the​ ​mammalian

brain(Simonite).​ ​In​ ​2013,​ ​clusters​ ​of​ ​these​ ​chips​ ​were​ ​already​ ​performing​ ​machine​ ​learning​ ​in​ ​a

way​ ​that​ ​the​ ​computers​ ​that​ ​run​ ​Deepmind​ ​are​ ​only​ ​recently​ ​able​ ​to​ ​accomplish.​ ​The​ ​more
 Giorgio​ ​4

researchers​ ​discover​ ​with​ ​regards​ ​to​ ​machine​ ​learning,​ ​they​ ​discover​ ​the​ ​most​ ​effective​ ​way​ ​to

program​ ​for​ ​learning​ ​is​ ​to​ ​imitate​ ​neural​ ​“programming”.​ ​Christof​ ​Koch,​ ​the​ ​chief​ ​scientific

officer​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Allen​ ​Institute​ ​for​ ​Brain​ ​Science​ ​in​ ​Seattle​ ​agrees​ ​with​ ​this​ ​assessment​ ​that​ ​we

must​ ​imitate​ ​the​ ​structure​ ​of​ ​consciousness​ ​before​ ​it​ ​can​ ​function​ ​accordingly.​ ​He​ ​claims​ ​that

there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​distinction​ ​to​ ​be​ ​drawn​ ​between​ ​a​ ​simulation​ ​of​ ​consciousness,​ ​and​ ​actual

consciousness;​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​achieve​ ​consciousness,​ ​AI​ ​technicians​ ​must​ ​not​ ​simply​ ​program

responses​ ​as​ ​Ishiguro’s​ ​team​ ​has​ ​done​ ​with​ ​Erica,​ ​they​ ​must​ ​learn​ ​to​ ​program​ ​the​ ​actual

processes​ ​which​ ​take​ ​place​ ​in​ ​conscious​ ​perception​ ​and​ ​thought(Regalado).

Though​ ​we​ ​have​ ​not​ ​incorporated​ ​this​ ​neural​ ​structure​ ​into​ ​robotic​ ​engineering​ ​quite​ ​yet,

there​ ​is​ ​still​ ​exciting​ ​programming​ ​being​ ​done​ ​at​ ​places​ ​like​ ​Ransselaer​ ​Polytechnic,​ ​where​ ​Nao

robots​ ​have​ ​begun​ ​to​ ​show​ ​a​ ​glimmer​ ​of​ ​self-awareness.​ ​In​ ​a​ ​modern​ ​takeoff​ ​on​ ​the​ ​“King’s​ ​wise

men”​ ​riddle,​ ​in​ ​which​ ​some​ ​vicious​ ​king​ ​forces​ ​wise​ ​men​ ​to​ ​guess​ ​what​ ​colour​ ​hat​ ​they​ ​are

wearing​ ​for​ ​some​ ​odd​ ​reason,​ ​researchers​ ​gave​ ​dumbing​ ​pills(turned​ ​off​ ​their​ ​speaking

capabilities)​ ​to​ ​their​ ​robots,​ ​with​ ​one​ ​placebo(a​ ​dummy​ ​switch),​ ​to​ ​see​ ​if​ ​the​ ​robots​ ​could

logically​ ​induce​ ​which​ ​one​ ​was​ ​given​ ​the​ ​placebo.​ ​One​ ​of​ ​them​ ​took​ ​initiative,​ ​seeing​ ​that

neither​ ​of​ ​the​ ​other​ ​two​ ​were​ ​speaking,​ ​and​ ​got​ ​up​ ​to​ ​say​ ​it​ ​didn’t​ ​know––but​ ​he​ ​did,​ ​in​ ​fact,​ ​say

he​ ​didn’t​ ​know,​ ​at​ ​which​ ​point​ ​he​ ​corrected​ ​himself,​ ​saying​ ​he​ ​now​ ​knew​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​given​ ​the

placebo(Pearson).​ ​To​ ​me,​ ​this​ ​seemed​ ​simple.​ ​If​ ​I​ ​and​ ​two​ ​other​ ​people​ ​had​ ​been​ ​given​ ​a

dumbing​ ​pill,​ ​the​ ​logical​ ​way​ ​to​ ​test​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​to​ ​have​ ​everyone​ ​try​ ​to​ ​speak,​ ​and​ ​whomever

was​ ​successful​ ​was​ ​obviously​ ​given​ ​the​ ​placebo.​ ​This​ ​would​ ​become​ ​far​ ​more​ ​difficult,​ ​however,

neither​ ​I​ ​nor​ ​my​ ​compatriots​ ​had​ ​mouths,​ ​and​ ​if​ ​all​ ​of​ ​our​ ​voices​ ​sounded​ ​identical.​ ​Even​ ​if​ ​that

were​ ​the​ ​case,​ ​I​ ​would​ ​recognise,​ ​after​ ​making​ ​the​ ​decision​ ​to​ ​speak,​ ​that​ ​I​ ​was​ ​actually​ ​speaking
 Giorgio​ ​5

or​ ​not​ ​speaking.​ ​This​ ​cognizance​ ​of​ ​my​ ​own​ ​action​ ​gives​ ​a​ ​limited​ ​view​ ​of​ ​my​ ​own

self-awareness,​ ​just​ ​as​ ​it​ ​gave​ ​the​ ​researchers​ ​a​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Nao​ ​robot’s​ ​limited​ ​self-awareness.

In​ ​fact,​ ​the​ ​robot​ ​then​ ​produced​ ​a​ ​mathematical​ ​proof​ ​to​ ​show​ ​the​ ​induction​ ​logic​ ​that​ ​would​ ​be

applied​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Wise​ ​Men​ ​puzzle,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​mathematical​ ​logic​ ​that​ ​lead​ ​him​ ​to​ ​recognise​ ​its

own​ ​voice.​ ​Discussing​ ​this​ ​robot​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​its​ ​self-awareness,​ ​I’m​ ​almost​ ​more​ ​inclined​ ​to​ ​call

it​ ​a​ ​“him”​ ​than​ ​I​ ​am​ ​to​ ​call​ ​Erica​ ​a​ ​“her”.

Seeing​ ​that​ ​this​ ​is​ ​currently​ ​the​ ​most​ ​advanced​ ​level​ ​of​ ​consciousness​ ​an​ ​AI​ ​can​ ​achieve,

it​ ​is​ ​easy​ ​to​ ​feel​ ​superior​ ​to​ ​robots,​ ​and​ ​dismiss​ ​Erica​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Nao​ ​robot​ ​as​ ​expensive​ ​parlor

tricks,​ ​as​ ​being​ ​only​ ​fancy​ ​machines.​ ​I​ ​truly​ ​feel​ ​I​ ​understand​ ​what​ ​it​ ​is​ ​to​ ​be​ ​human,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​I

have​ ​a​ ​claim​ ​to​ ​personhood​ ​that​ ​these​ ​AIs​ ​do​ ​not.​ ​Not​ ​only​ ​do​ ​I​ ​think,​ ​therefore​ ​I​ ​am––but​ ​I​ ​feel,

therefore​ ​I​ ​am...​ ​human.​ ​I​ ​feel​ ​that​ ​I​ ​am​ ​superior​ ​to​ ​robots,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​I​ ​should​ ​enjoy​ ​the​ ​legal

benefits​ ​of​ ​personhood,​ ​more​ ​so​ ​than​ ​an​ ​automated​ ​car​ ​manufacturing​ ​machine.​ ​I​ ​think​ ​this​ ​bias

is​ ​important​ ​to​ ​accept​ ​and​ ​process,​ ​because​ ​assuming​ ​AI​ ​ever​ ​becomes​ ​sentient,​ ​it​ ​may​ ​be

difficult​ ​to​ ​outgrow​ ​that​ ​mindset​ ​and​ ​realise​ ​that​ ​a​ ​machine​ ​may​ ​be​ ​my​ ​equal.​ ​But​ ​how​ ​do​ ​we

begin​ ​to​ ​treat​ ​something​ ​without​ ​flesh​ ​and​ ​blood​ ​as​ ​though​ ​it​ ​is​ ​of​ ​our​ ​kind?​ ​I​ ​hesitate​ ​to​ ​think

that​ ​we​ ​can​ ​even​ ​discuss​ ​robots​ ​in​ ​accurate​ ​terms––we​ ​simply​ ​lack​ ​the​ ​vocabulary.​ ​As​ ​Dr.​ ​Glas

says​ ​of​ ​Erica​ ​“we’re​ ​anthropomorphising​ ​the​ ​robot​ ​and​ ​placing​ ​those​ ​[names​ ​on​ ​the​ ​robot].

Really,​ ​a​ ​robot​ ​is––it’s​ ​not​ ​a​ ​person––it’s,​ ​maybe​ ​it’s​ ​not​ ​a​ ​machine.​ ​Maybe​ ​it’s​ ​a​ ​new

ontological​ ​category​ ​that​ ​we​ ​don’t​ ​really​ ​have​ ​the​ ​words​ ​to​ ​describe​ ​yet”(Calugareanu).​ ​If

androids​ ​are​ ​truly​ ​“other”,​ ​then​ ​how​ ​do​ ​we​ ​treat​ ​them​ ​humanely––does​ ​“humane”​ ​become​ ​a

racist​ ​term?
 Giorgio​ ​6

Depending​ ​on​ ​how​ ​we​ ​interact​ ​with​ ​these​ ​machines,​ ​we​ ​could​ ​see​ ​AI​ ​takeover,​ ​mass

unemployment,​ ​peaceful​ ​coexistence(maybe),​ ​or​ ​it​ ​could​ ​be​ ​that​ ​none​ ​of​ ​these​ ​happens,​ ​if​ ​AI

does​ ​not​ ​progress​ ​as​ ​quickly​ ​as​ ​predicted​ ​or​ ​sanctions​ ​are​ ​passed​ ​to​ ​halt​ ​its​ ​development.

Prominent​ ​figures​ ​like​ ​Stephen​ ​Hawking​ ​and​ ​Elon​ ​Musk​ ​are​ ​already​ ​warning​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Pandora’s

Box​ ​that​ ​AI​ ​represents,​ ​with​ ​Musk​ ​stating​ ​that​ ​General​ ​AI​ ​represents​ ​an​ ​existential​ ​threat​ ​to

civilisation,​ ​and​ ​he​ ​knows​ ​this​ ​because​ ​he’s​ ​been​ ​exposed​ ​to​ ​“very​ ​cutting​ ​edge​ ​AI”(Vincent).

Many​ ​AI​ ​researchers​ ​feel​ ​that​ ​he​ ​is​ ​crying​ ​wolf,​ ​seeing​ ​that​ ​the​ ​most​ ​advanced​ ​AI​ ​we​ ​have​ ​can

barely​ ​teach​ ​itself​ ​to​ ​walk​ ​or​ ​have​ ​a​ ​concept​ ​of​ ​self,​ ​but​ ​Musk​ ​feels​ ​that​ ​these​ ​“dumb”​ ​AIs​ ​will

lead​ ​to​ ​the​ ​dangerous,​ ​Super-Intelligent​ ​AIs​ ​like​ ​HAL​ ​9000​ ​from​ ​2001:​ ​A​ ​Space​ ​Odyssey.​ ​While

this​ ​is,​ ​of​ ​course,​ ​a​ ​valid​ ​concern,​ ​will​ ​it​ ​stop​ ​us​ ​from​ ​seeing​ ​benign​ ​or​ ​even​ ​benevolent​ ​AI​ ​as​ ​our

equals,​ ​as​ ​sentient,​ ​as​ ​people,​ ​or​ ​even​ ​as​ ​being​ ​useful?​ ​We​ ​must​ ​balance​ ​our​ ​biases​ ​with​ ​logic,

and​ ​perhaps​ ​Musk​ ​is​ ​doing​ ​just​ ​that,​ ​balancing​ ​his​ ​bias​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of​ ​AI​ ​with​ ​logical​ ​judgement​ ​that

it​ ​could​ ​very​ ​likely​ ​become​ ​dangerous,​ ​very​ ​quickly.

The​ ​more​ ​I​ ​read​ ​about​ ​Artificial​ ​Intelligence,​ ​the​ ​more​ ​ambivalent​ ​I​ ​become.​ ​I​ ​hope​ ​they

can​ ​be​ ​created​ ​responsibly,​ ​because​ ​the​ ​prospect​ ​of​ ​new​ ​entity​ ​which​ ​may​ ​transcend​ ​notion​ ​of

humanity​ ​and​ ​give​ ​us​ ​a​ ​wider​ ​view​ ​of​ ​commonality​ ​with​ ​sentient,​ ​thinking,​ ​emotive​ ​beings,​ ​as

AI​ ​are​ ​likely​ ​to​ ​become.​ ​However,​ ​I​ ​do​ ​not​ ​believe​ ​Erica​ ​falls​ ​into​ ​this​ ​category.​ ​She​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a

person,​ ​and​ ​I​ ​do​ ​not​ ​think​ ​she​ ​ever​ ​will​ ​be.​ ​I​ ​do​ ​not​ ​think​ ​Ishiguro’s​ ​team​ ​will​ ​create​ ​a​ ​sentient

and​ ​autonomous​ ​AI.​ ​I​ ​do,​ ​however,​ ​think​ ​that​ ​their​ ​work​ ​will​ ​inspire​ ​the​ ​team​ ​of​ ​researchers​ ​and

engineers​ ​that​ ​can​ ​create​ ​the​ ​first​ ​sentient​ ​AI.​ ​Artificial​ ​Intelligence​ ​will​ ​never​ ​be​ ​human,​ ​even​ ​if

we​ ​place​ ​it​ ​in​ ​a​ ​humanoid​ ​frame,​ ​but​ ​I​ ​believe​ ​we​ ​will​ ​learn​ ​they​ ​are​ ​something​ ​new,​ ​different,

perhaps​ ​better.​ ​As​ ​we​ ​reckon​ ​with​ ​our​ ​own​ ​humanity,​ ​perhaps​ ​a​ ​refined​ ​definition​ ​of​ ​who​ ​and
 Giorgio​ ​7

what​ ​we​ ​are​ ​will​ ​only​ ​perpetuate​ ​more​ ​questions​ ​about​ ​who,​ ​or​ ​what,​ ​is​ ​entitled​ ​to​ ​that​ ​status​ ​of

human.

2001:​ ​A​ ​Space​ ​Odyssey.​ ​Dir.​ ​Stanley​ ​Kubrick,​ ​written​ ​by​ ​Stanley​ ​Kubrick​ ​and​ ​Arthur​ ​C.​ ​Clarke.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer​ ​1968.​ ​Film.

Erica:​ ​Manmade​.​ ​Dir.​ ​Ilinca​ ​Calugareanu.​ ​The​ ​Guardian​ ​2017.​ ​Film.

Pearson,​ ​Jordan.​ ​“Watch​ ​These​ ​Cute​ ​Robots​ ​Struggle​ ​to​ ​Become​ ​Self-Aware.”​ ​Vice

Motherboard​ ​2015.​ ​Online.

Regalado,​ ​Antonio.​ ​“What​ ​It​ ​Will​ ​Take​ ​for​ ​Computers​ ​to​ ​Be​ ​Conscious.”​ ​MIT​ ​Technology

Review​ ​2014.​ ​Online.

Shoe,​ ​Des.​ ​“Do​ ​Androids​ ​Dream​ ​of​ ​Being​ ​Featured​ ​in​ ​Portrait​ ​Competitions?”​ ​New​ ​York​ ​Times

2017.​ ​Online.

Simonite,​ ​Tom.​ ​“Thinking​ ​in​ ​Silicon.”​ ​MIT​ ​Technology​ ​Review​ ​2013.​ ​Online.

Vincent,​ ​James.​ ​“Elon​ ​Musk​ ​says​ ​we​ ​need​ ​to​ ​regulate​ ​AI​ ​before​ ​it​ ​becomes​ ​a​ ​danger​ ​to

humanity.”​ ​The​ ​Verge​ ​2017.​ ​Online.